Is California a One-Party Consent State for Recording?

No, California (CA) is not a one-party consent state for recording: it is an all-party, or two-party, consent state under California Penal Code § 632, so everyone in a confidential conversation must agree before you record it. Cell and cordless phone calls need everyone's consent even when nothing private is said (§ 632.7).

California recording law at a glance

In California, that means you need everyone's agreement before recording a conversation where people expect privacy, in person or on a video call, and before recording almost any phone call. If you're wondering can someone record you without your permission in general, federal law sets the floor and California's rule sits on top. Below: the statute, calls, video meetings, work, penalties, exceptions and other states.

What does California law say about recording conversations?

California Penal Code § 632, the state's eavesdropping law, makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. It reads:

"A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication…" (§ 632(a))

Under § 632, confidentiality is the test: a communication is confidential when a party wants it kept among the people talking, but not when they "may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded," as at a public gathering (§ 632(c)). The California Supreme Court reads this as a reasonable expectation of privacy that no one is listening in or recording (Flanagan v. Flanagan, 2002). A closed-door one-on-one qualifies; a shouted exchange in a crowded restaurant may not.

Recording openly falls outside § 632, which excludes anyone all parties know is recording (§ 632(b)). That carve-out is in § 632 only; § 632.7, which covers cell and cordless calls, has no such exception and asks for the consent of all parties. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act needs only one participant's consent to record a phone call, which it calls a "wire communication," or an in-person conversation (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)).

When did California become a two-party consent state?

California became an all-party consent state in 1967, when the Invasion of Privacy Act (§ 630) replaced laws that let one party record a call (Flanagan).

Can you record a phone call in California?

No, you can't record a phone call in California without the consent of everyone on it. § 632 covers confidential calls; § 632.7 covers anyone who "intercepts or receives and intentionally records" a call with a cell or cordless phone on at least one end, private or not, and binds participants as well as eavesdroppers (Smith v. LoanMe, California Supreme Court, 2021).

• A warning at the start: under § 632, a business that advises all parties "at the outset of the conversation" of its intent to record "would not violate" the law (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006). For cell and cordless calls under § 632.7, the California Supreme Court left open whether staying on the line after a beep counts as consent (LoanMe), so ask for a yes.
• Calls to other states follow the interstate rule below.

Can you record a Zoom, Teams or Google Meet call in California?

Yes, you can record a Zoom, Microsoft Teams or Google Meet call in California if everyone on it agrees to the recording. § 632 covers confidential communications by "telephone, or other device," so a private video meeting follows the same all-party rule. With attendees in several states, follow the strictest one.

• Say it out loud, especially with a recording extension or bot. A platform's recording banner tells people a recording is on, and § 632 doesn't reach recording everyone knows about, but someone who joins by phone or misses the banner may not know; a spoken yes from each person removes the doubt.
• AI note-takers can draw § 631 wiretapping claims: in August 2026, a federal judge let one proceed against a vendor accused of training its models on meeting audio (order, a ruling on the pleadings).
• Silent video generally falls outside § 632, but the voyeurism law, § 647(j), bans hidden cameras filming people who may be undressed in bedrooms, bathrooms or changing rooms.

Can you record conversations at work in California?

Only with everyone's consent: California's all-party rule covers a closed-door meeting with your manager like any confidential conversation, and your employer can also ban recording by policy.

Can I record my boss yelling at me? Not secretly: in person, only if the talk isn't confidential; on a cell phone call, not without everyone's consent. The exceptions below cover threats, violent crimes and harassing calls, not workplace harassment in general.

Employee monitoring has limits too. Employers can't record employees in restrooms, locker rooms or changing rooms without a court order (Labor Code § 435), and AB 1331 (2026) restricts surveillance tools in workplace bathrooms from January 1, 2027.

What are the penalties for illegal recording in California?

Illegal recording under California Penal Code § 632 can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony: a fine of up to $2,500 per violation, up to 1 year in county jail or 16 months, 2 or 3 years in state prison, or both (Penal Code §§ 17, 18). A prior conviction under § 632 or a related section, such as § 631, raises the maximum fine to $10,000 per violation.

Can you sue someone in California for recording you? Yes. § 637.2 allows a lawsuit for $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, even if you suffered no actual damages. SB 690 (Ch. 976, Stats. 2026) changes § 637.2 from January 1, 2027, but only for website and app tracking claims under the pen-register section, § 638.51, which only the Attorney General will be able to bring, a limit that also reaches pending private suits filed within two years before that date (§ 637.2(d)(2) as amended); lawsuits over recorded calls and conversations, and the $5,000 amount, stay the same.

§ 637.2 sets no deadline of its own; a California appeals court applied the one-year statute of limitations for suits on a statutory penalty (Code of Civil Procedure § 340(a)) and started the clock when the victim discovered the recording (Montalti v. Catanzariti, 1987). Ask a California attorney how the deadline applies to your facts.

Admissibility depends on the court: § 632(d) bars an illegal recording as evidence "in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding," except in a case over the recording itself, but criminal trials can still admit it because the California Constitution's Truth-in-Evidence provision overrides that rule (People v. Guzman, 2019).

Exceptions to California's recording law

California's all-party consent rule has narrow exceptions for law enforcement and for victims gathering evidence.

• Law enforcement, including police, district attorneys and the Attorney General, may record what it could lawfully record before 1968 (§ 633); wiretaps need a judge's order, the equivalent of a warrant (§ 629.50).
• Evidence of crimes: one party may record to gather evidence of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, a violent felony, threatening or harassing calls, or domestic violence (§ 633.5).
• Domestic violence restraining orders: a victim seeking one may record a confidential communication the abuser makes to them, as evidence for the court (§ 633.6).

What if you're recording someone in another state?

On interstate calls, follow the strictest state: California applies its all-party consent rule to confidential calls with people in California, even when the recorder is in a one-party jurisdiction. In Kearney, a brokerage's Atlanta, Georgia branch was accused of recording calls with California clients without their knowledge; the court applied § 632 going forward but declined to impose damages for past calls.

For every other state, see the full list of two party consent states and one-party consent states.

Last reviewed: October 12, 2026. Fact-checked against the statute texts linked in this article.

Sources: California Legislature, Penal Code §§ 17, 18, 629.50, 630, 631, 632, 632.7, 633, 633.5, 633.6, 637.2 and 647(j); Labor Code § 435; Code of Civil Procedure § 340(a); SB 690 (Ch. 976, Stats. 2026); AB 1331 (Ch. 851, Stats. 2026). Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal.4th 766 (2002); Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006); People v. Guzman, 8 Cal.5th 673 (2019); Smith v. LoanMe, 11 Cal.5th 183 (2021); Montalti v. Catanzariti, 191 Cal.App.3d 96 (1987); Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176 (1998); order of Aug. 13, 2026, No. 25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.). 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 29 U.S.C. § 157.

What changed

• October 12, 2026: clarified the evidence rule in § 632(d), that "per violation" applies to the § 632 fine, and that SB 690's limit reaches pending suits filed within two years before it takes effect.
• October 9, 2026: first published.